DECISION ON MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT APPLICATION

Transcription

1 DECISION ON MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT APPLICATION Application Ref:EEZ OMV New Zealand Limited Application to discharge harmful substances CI-111 and DMO86277

2 This page is intentionally blank

3 MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT EEZ Pursuant to section 87F(1) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) 2012 (the EEZ Act), the application for marine discharge consent by OMV New Zealand Limited to discharge harmful substances from the Floating Production Storage and Offloading facility, the Raroa, within the Maari production field, Petroleum Mining Permit is GRANTED subject to conditions (listed in Schedule 1). Pursuant to section 71(1) of the EEZ Act this marine discharge consent commences when the time for lodging an appeal against the grant of the consent expires and no appeal has been lodged, or when the High Court determines any appeal, or all persons who lodged appeals withdraw their appeals. Marine discharge consent EEZ expires on 25 July Dated this day of Dr Allan Freeth Chief Executive Environmental Protection Authority

4 SCHEDULE 1: MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT CONDITIONS DEFINTIONS Terms used in this schedule have the following meanings: EPA FPSO Environment Protection Authority Floating Production Storage and Offloading facility EEZ Act Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 Dose A portion of a substance added during a process CONDITIONS Pursuant to sections 63 and 87F(4) of the EEZ Act, this marine discharge consent authorises the discharge of the harmful substances applied for in application EEZ300005, listed in Schedule 1, subject to the following conditions: 1. This marine discharge consent must be exercised in general accordance with the deemed marine discharge consent EEZ and with the application for marine discharge consent dated 21 November 2016, and marine discharge consent EEZ300002, except where modified by the conditions below. 2. This marine discharge consent expires on 25 July The Consent Holder must comply with the discharge parameters detailed in Table 1 i of Schedule The Consent Holder must ensure that a copy of this marine discharge consent and any variations are available for inspection at the Consent Holder s head office in New Zealand and on-board the FPSO Raroa until its expiry date. 5. The Consent holder must, as soon as possible, report to the EPA any defect that is discovered which substantially affects the efficiency or completeness of the equipment involved in the discharge of the substances listed in Schedule The consent holder must keep a log, which is available to the EPA on request, of the use of the substances listed in Schedule 1. The log must include the date and volume of the substances used. 7. The discharge of substances authorised by this consent may only take place with the produced water via the overboard discharge line. EEZ Marine Discharge Consent Page ii

5 EEZ300005: Table 1 harmful substance authorised for discharge Product name HSNO Approval Aquatic ecotoxicity classification Dose concentration PPM Max vol per dose (litre) Number of doses per ii Day Week Month Year CI-111 HSR A 8, N/A N/A N/A 5 DMO86277 HSR A ,562 N/A N/A N/A 1 END OF MARINE CONSENT DOCUMENT Advice Notes: i The consent holder may continue to discharge the substances authorised by deemed marine discharge consent EEZ and must comply with any conditions of discharge for those substances specified in EEZ ii The maximum volume per dose and the period at which this dose can be applied. For example if the maximum allowable volume is 130,562 litres and number of allowable doses is 1 per year, this means that up to 130,562 litres may be added to the discharge system over 1 year, not that 130,562 litres can be added just once per year. EEZ Marine Discharge Consent Page iii

6 This page is intentionally blank

7 DECISION ON MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT APPLICATION Background 1. The EPA is the consent authority for activities within the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf beyond the 12 nautical mile limit from New Zealand s coastline. One of the EPA s functions, pursuant to section 13(1) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ Act), is to decide applications for marine discharge consents. 2. OMV New Zealand Limited (OMV) operate the production facility for the Maari oil field offshore from Taranaki. On 31 October 2015, some of the provisions of their DMP, which authorised their permitted discharges, and contained their emergency spill response plans and environmental monitoring requirements, were deemed a marine discharge consent granted under s 87F of the EEZ Act (by virtue of s 164B of the EEZ Act). This deemed marine discharge consent (now known as EEZ900004), authorises the discharge of a number of substances. One of these substances is the demulsifier DMO On 13 July 2016, the EPA granted marine discharge consent EEZ to OMV. EEZ authorises OMV to discharge, subject to conditions, corrosion inhibitor CI-11. The application 4. Corrosion inhibitor CI-11 and demulsifier DMO29726 are no longer available from the supplier and OMV is seeking to replace them with similar products. Both of these products contain harmful substances which require a marine discharge consent granted by the EPA before they can be discharged. 5. On 24 November 2016, OMV lodged an application for a marine discharge consent to discharge the corrosion inhibitor CI-111 and demulsifier DMO Demulsifier DMO86277 is to be continuously added to, and discharged with, the production water. The maximum concentration at the point of discharge will be 50ppm 1 and the maximum volume discharged will be 130,562 litres per annum. 7. Corrosion inhibitor CI-111 is to be used during workover activities up to a maximum of five times per year. The maximum volume discharged with the production water, per event, will be 250 litres at a concentration of 8,000ppm. As such, the maximum volume discharged will be 1250 litres per annum. 8. On 7 December 2016, the EPA informed OMV of its decision not to return the application as incomplete under s 41 of the EEZ Act. Activity subject to approval 9. The proposed discharge of certain harmful substances from production water from an existing structure is classified as a non-notified activity under regulation 16(3) under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2015 (D&D Regulations). 1 Parts per million EEZ Marine Discharge Consent Page 1

8 10. The substances subject to this application fall within the scope of reg 16(3) because they are substances ecotoxic to aquatic organisms, and are hazardous for the purposes of the Hazardous Substances (Minimum Degrees of Hazard) Regulations Statutory framework 11. Section 10(1) of the Act states: The purpose of this Act is - (a) to promote the sustainable management 2 of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf; and (b) in relation to the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf, and the waters above the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone, to protect the environment from pollution by regulating or prohibiting the discharge of harmful substances and the dumping or incineration of waste or other matter. 12. Section 20 of the EEZ Act restricts certain activities from being undertaken in the EEZ or in, or on, the continental shelf unless they are authorised under the EEZ Act. Section 20B restricts the discharge of harmful substances from a New Zealand structure into the sea or into or onto the seabed of the EEZ unless the discharge is a permitted activity or authorised by a marine discharge consent or section 21, 22 or 23 of the EEZ Act. 13. Section 87F provides the EPA with the power to refuse an application for a marine discharge consent, or grant, in whole or in part, subject to conditions. Best available information and requests for further information 14. In accordance with section 87E of the EEZ Act, when considering an application for a marine discharge consent, the EPA must: (a) make full use of its powers to request information from the applicant, obtain advice, and commission a review or a report; and (b) base decisions on the best available information; and (c) take into account any uncertainty or inadequacy in the information available. 15. Under s 87E(2), if, in relation to making a decision on the application, the information available is uncertain or inadequate, I must favour caution and environmental protection. It is important to note that s 87E(3) provides that best available information does not include all information and that I must exercise judgement having regard to issues of cost, effort and time in obtaining information. 16. I consider there is sufficient information provided in the application form, Safety Data Sheets (SDS), Impact Assessment and accompanying documents, to make an assessment of the risks of discharging each of the substances. To manage any risk of environmental effects I have imposed the conditions listed in Schedule 1. 2 Section 10 of the EEZ Act. Sustainable management is defined in section 10(2). EEZ Marine Discharge Consent Page 2

9 17. In my opinion, the information supplied by OMV is the best available without unreasonable cost, effort or time in the circumstances. The information provided is sufficient for me to be confident that seeking more information about the products would be unlikely to yield significantly different findings as to potential effects. 18. Therefore, I do not consider it necessary to request further information from the applicant, 3 or to commission independent reviews or advice In reaching my decision on OMV s application, I have also relied on advice received from experts at the EPA. These experts have assessed the environmental risks from discharging the application products and evaluated the application against the relevant legislative matters. Hearing on the application 20. Under section 44B, the EPA may conduct a hearing on an application for a marine consent for a nonnotified activity if I consider it necessary or desirable, and must hold a hearing if the applicant requests one. 21. A hearing was not held, because I did not consider one necessary or desirable for this application, and the applicant did not request one. Decision-making criteria 22. Section 87D(2)(a) of the EEZ Act sets out the matters that I must consider in coming to a decision on an application for a marine discharge consent. These include: (i) the matters described in section 59(2), except paragraph (c); and (ii) the effects on human health of the discharge of harmful substances if consent is granted. 23. Section 87D(3) of the EEZ Act also requires that I have regard to the sources of information listed at section 59(3). Assessment 24. The EPA s experts have carried out an assessment of the application in which the effects of discharging CI-111 and DMO86277 were considered in relation to all of the relevant matters listed under sections 59 and 87D of the EEZ Act. This is tabulated in Appendix One. The assessment provided a recommendation to grant the application subject to conditions listed in Schedule 1 of the consent. The sections below only discuss matters that I consider warrant further discussion in relation to the application. 3 Section 42 of the EEZ Act 4 Section 44 of the EEZ Act EEZ Marine Discharge Consent Page 3

10 Section 87D(2)(a)(i): relevant s 59 matters Section 59(2)(a) effects 25. When considering whether to grant the application, I must, under section 59(2)(a) of the EEZ Act, take into account any effects on the environment or existing interests including cumulative effects and effects in the waters above or beyond the continental shelf. 26. According to the Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) compiled by EPA expert s, the effects of discharging of substances subject to this application would be likely to be highly localised with no discernible ecosystem impact. Therefore, the conclusion reached in the ERA is that the application would be likely to represent a very low risk to the environment 5. I agree with this assessment. 27. I note that at paragraph 21 of the Evaluation Report, the EPA s experts acknowledge that discharging CI- 111 and DMO86277 may result in cumulative effects with the other substances discharged from the Raroa. However, monitoring to date of approved substances, under EEZ and EEZ300002, has not identified significant environmental effects. Therefore I consider it is reasonable to assume that, as the risk to the environment from discharging CI-111 and DMO86277 is considered very low, there is unlikely to be a significant increase in the risk of cumulative effects from granting this application. 28. The EPA Staff Evaluation Report identifies commercial fishers as the most likely existing interests that may be affected from granting this application. The report concludes that, as there is a very low risk of adverse environmental effects, including effects on fish species the commercial fishers target, there are unlikely to be any effects on the fishers activities. I have considered this argument and conclude that there are unlikely to be any effects, from granting this application, on existing interests. Section 59(2)(d) and (e) matters 29. Section 59(2)(d) and (e) require that I take into account the importance of protecting the biological diversity and integrity of marine species, rare and vulnerable ecosystems and habitats of threatened species. 30. The EPA s experts have concluded that there are unlikely to be greater than minimal adverse effects on the environment resulting from the discharge of CI-111 and DMO Taking this into consideration I conclude that there are unlikely to be adverse effects on biological diversity and the integrity of marine species in the area around the discharges from granting OMV s application. 31. No rare and vulnerable ecosystems and habitats of threatened species have been identified in the area around the discharges. Therefore I have concluded that granting OMV s application is unlikely to have an effect on biological diversity, and integrity of marine species, rare and vulnerable ecosystems and habitats of threatened species. Section 59(2)(f) matters 32. Section 59(2)(g) of the EEZ Act requires that I take into account the efficient use and development of natural resources when deciding to grant or refuse an application for a marine discharge consent. 5 Paragraph Paragraph 7.3 EEZ Marine Discharge Consent Page 4

11 33. Granting this application would enable OMV s continued efficient use and development of natural resources as required by its petroleum mining permit PMP38160 and minimise disruption to the production from the Maari Field. Maximising the life of field assets will ensure more efficient production as measured in costs against returns. 34. I conclude that granting the application will help ensure the most efficient use and development of the natural resources of the Maari Field. Section 59(2)(i) matters 35. Section 59(2)(h) of the EEZ Act requires that I consider the nature and effect of other marine management regimes when deciding to grant or refuse OMV s request. I note that OMV must comply with a number of different marine management regimes, including WorkSafe New Zealand and Maritime New Zealand that impose standards and requirements that are relevant to the environmental matters I must consider under section 59 of the EEZ Act. 36. I consider that any requirements under these regimes do not directly impact on my decision. Section 59(2)(j) matters 37. Section 59(2)(j) of the EEZ Act requires that I consider the extent to which imposing conditions under s 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of discharging CI-111 and DMO86277, when deciding to grant or refuse OMV s application. 38. I consider that the conditions listed in Schedule 1, of the marine discharge consent prefacing this decision, are appropriate to manage any potential adverse effects, on the environment and existing interests, resulting from granting OMV s application. Section 87D(2)(a)(ii): Effects on Human Heath 39. Section 87D(2)(a)(ii) requires that I must take into account the effects on human health, of the discharge of harmful substances, before granting OMV s application to discharge CI-111 and DMO Paragraphs 24 to 26 of the Evaluation Report discuss effects on granting OMV s on human health. The experts conclude that there are a number of regimes in place 7 to manage the effects on human health from granting this application. The report also considers the monitoring to date, of approved substances under EEZ and EEZ300002, has not identified any effects on human health, and the environmental effects from granting this application are likely to be minimal. The report concludes there are unlikely to be adverse effects on human health from granting this application. 41. On this basis I consider that there are unlikely to be adverse effects on human health from granting this application. 7 The Continental Shelf (Maari Development Safety Zones) Regulations 2008 and Health and Safety at Work (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2016 EEZ Marine Discharge Consent Page 5

12 Conclusion 42. I conclude that the application, for a marine discharge consent, is GRANTED, subject to conditions listed in Schedule 1, on the basis that: (a) All relevant matters under sections 87D and 87E have been considered and there is sufficient information to confirm that there are unlikely to be greater than minimal adverse effects on the environment, existing interests or human health resulting from granting this application. (b) Granting the application accords with the sustainable management purpose of the EEZ Act. (c) Any potential effects can be manged by the conditions in Schedule 1 of the decision. Duration of consent 43. Section 87H of the EEZ Act sets out the matters relevant to determining the duration of the consent. It states: (1) The duration of a marine discharge consent or a marine dumping consent is the term specified in the consent. (2) However, the duration must not be more than 35 years. (3) If no duration is specified in a consent, its duration is 5 years. (4) When determining the duration of a consent, the EPA must comply with sections 73(2)(b) and (c), 87D, and 87E. 44. Pursuant to section 73(2)(b) of the EEZ Act, in determining the duration of the consent, I must take into account the duration sought by OMV. OMV have not indicated a duration for which they are seeking consent to discharge. 45. Pursuant to section 73(2)(c) of the EEZ Act, I have taken into account the duration of the legislative authorisations associated with the discharge activity that is the subject of this application. These legislative authorisations are deemed marine discharge consent EEZ and marine discharge consent EEZ300002, both of which are due to expire on 25 July My overriding consideration is the sustainable management purpose of the EEZ Act and whether this decision has any direct impact on that, and if so, whether there would be an advantage in aligning the duration of this marine discharge consent with the existing consents EEZ and EEZ I consider there would be an advantage in aligning the duration of this consent with OMV s deemed marine discharge consent EEZ and marine discharge consent EEZ as all discharge consents would expire on the same day. This provides clarity for OMV and the EPA as to when all authorised activities must cease or be re-authorised by new consents, and enables any further consent that may be granted for the discharge of CI-111 and DMO86277 to be aligned with the authorisation for the discharge of other harmful substances. 48. Having considered the requirements set out in 87H, and in light of the purpose of the EEZ Act, I have determined that this marine discharge consent, EEZ300005, should expire on 25 July End of decision EEZ Marine Discharge Consent Page 6

13 APPENDIX ONE EEZ Marine Discharge Consent

14 Assessment of application EEZ against the relevant matters under section 87D(2)(a) Tony Davies, Senior Advisor, EEZ Applications 17 January 2017

15 Assessment against the relevant matters under section 87D(2)(a) Information taken into account under section 87D(2)(a) of the EEZ Act Assessment The likely effects on the environment are described in the environmental risk assessment (ERA). The conclusion of the ERA is that granting the application may result in minimal effects on the environment which are likely to represent a very low risk to the environment. Minimal effects are defined as 1 : Highly localised and contained environmental impact, affecting a few (less than ten) individual members of communities of flora or fauna, no discernible ecosystem impact. Section 59(2)(a)(i) any effects on the environment or existing interests of allowing the activity including cumulative effects Similar products, specifically CI-11 and DMO29726, are currently authorised to be discharged under consents EEZ and EEZ respectively. In its environmental risk assessment of CI-11 (EEZ300002) the EPA concluded that discharging CI-11 represented a negligible risk to the environment. Discharging CI-111 represents an increase in risk to the environment but this risk is still considered to be very low. Discharging CI-111 and DMO86277 may result in cumulative effects with the other substances discharged from the Raroa. However monitoring to date has not identified significant environmental effects and it is reasonable to assume that, as the risk to the environment from discharging CI-111 and DMO86277 is low, there is unlikely to be a significant increase in the risk of cumulative effects from granting this application. There are unlikely to be any effects on existing interests of allowing the activity. See my assessment under s 59(2)(h). 1 ERA Appendix Two EEZ Assessment against s 87D(2)(a)

16 Information taken into account under section 87D(2)(a) of the EEZ Act Section 59(2)(a)(ii) any effects on the environment or existing interests of allowing the activity including effects that may occur in New Zealand or in the waters above or beyond the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone Section 59(2)(b)(i) the effects on the environment or existing interests of other activities undertaken in the area covered by the application or in its vicinity including the effects of activities that are not regulated under this Act Section 59(2)(b)(ii) the effects on the environment or existing interests of other activities undertaken in the area covered by the application or in its vicinity including effects that may occur in New Zealand or in the waters or beyond the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone Assessment There are unlikely to be effects in New Zealand or beyond the outer limits of the EEZ. Any effects are likely to be limited to the immediate area surrounding the Raroa which is approximately 75km off the Taranaki coast. The discharges authorised by EEZ and EEZ and other existing activities allowed under the EEZ Act are likely to have an impact on marine species and ecosystems in the area surrounding the FPSO. I assert that the probable impact is low. These effects are monitored as part of OMV s environmental monitoring required under EEZ and EEZ I do not consider there to be any other activities that will have an effect on the proposed discharges. EEZ Assessment against s 87D(2)(a)

17 Information taken into account under section 87D(2)(a) of the EEZ Act Section 59(2)(d) the importance of protecting the biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes Section 59(2)(e) the importance of protecting rare and vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species Section 59(2)(f) the economic benefit to New Zealand of allowing the application Section 59(2)(g) the efficient use and development of natural resources Assessment The EPA s expert has assessed that replacing CI-11 and DMO29726 with CI-111 and DMO86277 respectively, results in very low risk of effects to the marine environment. I adopt that finding and consider that discharging of CI-111 and DMO86277 instead of CI-11 and DMO29726 will not result in any additional significant or permanent adverse effects on biological diversity and the integrity of marine species, ecosystems or processes. Previous studies 2 have not identified any rare or vulnerable ecosystems or the habitats of threatened species around the Raroa or within the Maari production field. Therefore, I conclude it is unlikely that there will be any effects on rare or vulnerable ecosystems or the habitats of threatened species from allowing the discharges in this application. Corrosion inhibitors and demulsifiers are required to maintain well integrity and production rates. Allowing the application enables OMV to maintain their facility and ensure production is not inhibited. OMV pay royalties to the Crown based on their production. Therefore, I consider there is an economic benefit to New Zealand of allowing the application. Granting this application would enable OMV s continued use and development of the natural resources as required by its petroleum mining permit PMP Environmental impact assessments for various marine consent applications, including OMV s Maari development drilling application. EEZ Assessment against s 87D(2)(a)

18 Information taken into account under section 87D(2)(a) of the EEZ Act Assessment OMV must comply with a number of different marine management regimes, including WorkSafe NZ and Maritime NZ that impose standards and requirements that are relevant to the environmental matters that must be considered under section 59 of the EEZ Act. Section 59(2)(h) the nature and effect of other marine management regimes Section 59(2)(i) best practice in relation to an industry or activity Section 59(2)(j) the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity Section 59(2)(k) relevant regulations Section 59(2)(l) any other applicable law I do not consider that any requirements under these regimes are directly relevant to this application. The Continental Shelf (Maari Development Safety Zones) Regulations 2008 establishes a 500m exclusion zone around the Maari facilities. This exclusion zone prohibits the entry of unauthorised vessels within 500m of the facilities and is likely to limit potential adverse effects on commercial fishers. Commercial fishers are the most likely existing interests with activities that may interact with the activities subject to the application. I understand that the use of corrosion inhibitors and demulsifiers are considered to be best industry practice to maintain production. I recommend imposing conditions requiring OMV to limit volume, concentrations and frequency of dosing of CI-111 and DMO86277, into the production system. I consider this will operate to mitigate possible adverse effects resulting from the discharge of the products. I have given consideration to the Continental Shelf (Maari Development Safety Zones) Regulations 2008 and consider that this regulation contributes to minimizing the effects on existing interests by imposing a buffer zone around the Maari facilities. No other laws are likely to be directly applicable to this application. EEZ Assessment against s 87D(2)(a)

19 Information taken into account under section 87D(2)(a) of the EEZ Act Section 59(2)(m) any other matter the EPA considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application Assessment I consider there are no other matters relevant to this application. Section 59(3) The EPA must have regard to- a) any submissions made and evidence given in relation to the application; and b) any advice, reports, or information it has sought and received in relation to the application; and The application is a non-notified application. Therefore no submissions were sought. The EPA did not seek advice or additional reports nor was any advice received from the Māori Advisory Committee with regards to this application. c) any advice received from the Maori Advisory Committee EEZ Assessment against s 87D(2)(a)

20 Information taken into account under section 87D(2)(a) of the EEZ Act Assessment The EPA s expert has assessed that discharging CI-111 and DMO86277 results in a very low risk of adverse effects to the marine environment. I consider it appropriate to conclude that if the risk of environmental effects are low there is likely to be similar risk of effects on human health. Monitoring as part of OMV s existing consents EEZ and EEZ has not identified any effects on human health from the discharges to date from the Raroa. Section 87D(2)(a)(ii) the effects on human health of the discharge of harmful substances if consent is granted Regulation 4 of the Continental Shelf (Maari Development Safety Zones) Regulations 2008 (Safety Zone Regs), establishes safety zones comprising an area extending to a distance of 500m from the wellhead installation and FPSO. Regulation 6 of the Safety Zone Regs prohibits entry of ships into the safety zones unless engaged in construction, repair or servicing of the Maari infrastructure. Therefore, there should be no direct human contact with the substance other than by those workers engaged by OMV. The EPA acknowledges the health of workers is subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2016, which is monitored and enforced by WorkSafe New Zealand. Therefore I conclude that there are unlikely to be any adverse effects on human health from granting this application. EEZ Assessment against s 87D(2)(a)